4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Determining fracture toughness from cutting tests on polymers

期刊

ENGINEERING FRACTURE MECHANICS
卷 76, 期 18, 页码 2711-2730

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.07.019

关键词

Cutting; Fracture toughness; Adhesion; Friction; Shear

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A cutting test method has been developed for polymers and analysis schemes derived for the determination of the fracture toughness, G(c) from the cutting data. The experimental scheme requires the measurement of forces for a cut of width b, in both the cutting direction, F-c/b and the transverse direction, F-t/b. Depths of cut were varied from 0.025 mm to 0.25 mm and the tool rake angle was varied from -20 degrees to 30 degrees. Cutting was performed at a speed of 10 mm s(-1) on three polymers (HIPS, PA 4/6 and LLDPE). In addition, values of fracture toughness and yield strength were determined for the polymers using standard tests for comparison with the values obtained from cutting. Three analysis methods were derived to analyse the cutting data with the most favoured scheme based on an energy balance and using Merchant's force minimisation criterion to determine the shear plane angle. This avoids the need to measure the cut chip thickness. Results for HIPS and PA 4/6 gave values of G(c) in good agreement with the values determined via LEFM. However, the cutting method is intended for materials such as LLDPE which has a low yield stress and moderately high toughness, i.e. materials which cannot be tested using standard LEFM fracture mechanics tests. The cutting analysis appeared to give valid values of G(c) for LLDPE in that they were independent of rake angle. There were some complications when analysing this polymer due to visco-elastic recovery effects in the chip and these have been considered. Finally, the cutting analyses always determined high values of yield stress which would appear to indicate work hardening. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据